Hip power analysis in individuals with transfemoral amputation: A different strategy different from stabilisation during gait stance

Dumas, Raphael, Frossard, Laurent, Robert-Leblanc, Catheryne, Beaulieu, Pierre-Marc, & Branemark, Rickard (2015) Hip power analysis in individuals with transfemoral amputation: A different strategy different from stabilisation during gait stance. In 25th Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB), 12-16 July 2015, Glasgow, UK.


Introduction and Objectives

Joint moments and joint powers during gait are widely used to determine the effects of rehabilitation programs as well as prosthetic fitting. Following the definition of power (dot product of joint moment and joint angular velocity) it has been previously proposed to analyse the 3D angle between both vectors, αMw.

Basically, joint power is maximised when both vectors are parallel and cancelled when both vectors are orthogonal.

In other words, αMw < 60° reveals a propulsion configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to positive power) while αMw > 120° reveals a resistance configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to negative power).

A stabilisation configuration (less than 50% of the moment contribute to power) corresponds to 60° < αMw < 120°.

Previous studies demonstrated that hip joints of able-bodied adults (AB) are mainly in a stabilisation configuration (αMw about 90°) during the stance phase of gait. [1, 2] Individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) need to maximise joint power at the hip while controlling the prosthetic knee during stance.

Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that TFAs should adopt a strategy that is different from a continuous stabilisation.

The objective of this study was to compute joint power and αMw for TFA and to compare them with AB.


Three trials of walking at self-selected speed were analysed for 8 TFAs (7 males and 1 female, 46±10 years old, 1.78±0.08 m 82±13 kg) and 8 ABs (males, 25±3 years old, 1.75±0.04, m 67±6 kg). The joint moments are computed from a motion analysis system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden) and a multi-axial transducer (JR3, Woodland, USA) mounted above the prosthetic knee for TFAs and from a motion analysis system (Motion Analysis, Santa Rosa, USA) and force plates (Bertec, Columbus, USA) for ABs. The TFAs were fitted with an OPRA (Integrum, AB, Gothengurg, Sweden) osseointegrated implant system and their prosthetic designs include pneumatic, hydraulic and microprocessor knees. Previous studies showed that the inverse dynamics computed from the multi-axial transducer is the proper method considering the absorption at the foot and resistance at the knee.


The peak of positive power at loading response (H1) was earlier and lower for TFA compared to AB. Although the joint power is lower, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals an obvious propulsion configuration (mean αMw about 20°) for TFA compared to a stabilisation configuration (mean αMw about 70°) for AB.

The peaks of negative power at midstance (H2) and of positive power at preswing / initial swing (H3) occurred later, lower and longer for TFA compared to AB. Again, the joint powers are lower for TFA but, in this case, αMw is almost comparable (with a time lag), demonstrating a stabilisation (almost a resistance for TFA, mean αMw about 120°) and a propulsion configuration, respectively. The swing phase is not analysed in the present study.


The analysis of hip joint power may indicate that TFAs demonstrated less propulsion and resistance than ABs during the stance phase of gait. This is true from a quantitative point of view. On the contrary, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals that TFAs have a remarkable propulsion strategy at loading response and almost a resistance strategy at midstance while ABs adopted a stabilisation strategy.

The propulsion configuration, with αMw close to 0°, seems to aim at maximising the positive joint power. The configuration close to resistance, with αMw far from 180°, might aim at unlocking the prosthetic knee before swing while minimising the negative power.

This analysis of both joint power and 3D angle between the joint moment and the joint angular velocity provides complementary insights into the gait strategies of TFA that can be used to support evidence-based rehabilitation and fitting of prosthetic components.

Impact and interest:

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

22 since deposited on 04 Jan 2016
22 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 91563
Item Type: Conference Paper
Refereed: Yes
Additional URLs:
Keywords: Osseointegration, Inverse dynamics, Bone-anchored prosthesis, Amputation, Kinetics
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > HUMAN MOVEMENT AND SPORTS SCIENCE (110600) > Biomechanics (110601)
Divisions: Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > Schools > School of Exercise & Nutrition Sciences
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2015 [please consult the author]
Deposited On: 04 Jan 2016 00:24
Last Modified: 06 Jan 2016 05:05

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page